Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #620053 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-23 05:23 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-27 22:02 +0000 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 92 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 05:23 -0800
Life inside atoms HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 05:49 -0800
Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 06:02 -0800
Life inside atoms HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 09:13 -0800
Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 10:08 -0800
Life inside atoms HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 11:50 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-23 17:41 -0500
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 15:55 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-23 18:37 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-23 20:08 +0000
Re: Life inside atoms Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-23 18:38 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 04:22 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-24 12:48 +0000
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 07:22 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 07:22 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 06:31 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-24 16:44 +0000
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 09:40 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-02-24 14:02 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 20:55 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 05:06 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-25 17:22 +0000
Re: Life inside atoms edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-02-25 11:33 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 15:17 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 15:59 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 22:54 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 07:34 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 05:43 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 07:47 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 05:55 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 08:15 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 06:37 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 08:51 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 07:41 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 09:48 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 08:25 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 10:39 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 10:50 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 09:03 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 11:36 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 04:10 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 07:12 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 05:31 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 07:34 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 05:34 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 06:23 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 08:31 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 06:37 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 10:43 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 09:26 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 12:23 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-28 17:38 +0000
Re: Life inside atoms Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 06:44 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms "Mutt Buncher" <mahipals_ballsack@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 07:26 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 08:19 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-02-28 11:14 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 11:20 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 13:36 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 12:06 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 14:20 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 12:37 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 12:53 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 15:35 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 14:19 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 17:07 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 17:28 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-01 03:17 +0000
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 08:16 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 06:20 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-01 17:40 +0000
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 13:18 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 11:57 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 14:04 -0600
atoms in life etc. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 12:50 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 15:16 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-01 19:28 -0500
Re: Life inside atoms HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 17:42 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-03 17:30 -0500
Re: Life inside atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 18:13 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 16:41 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-28 20:32 -0500
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 15:32 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-28 19:41 +0000
atoms in life-like scenarios noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 11:59 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 14:00 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 08:24 -0600
Re: Life inside atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-28 15:21 +0000
atoms inside of life noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 10:15 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-27 23:11 +0000
Re: Life inside atoms edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-02-27 10:38 -0800
Re: Life inside atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-27 23:09 +0000
Re: Life inside atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-27 22:02 +0000
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 20:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <58b624ca$0$53489$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #621008 |
On 2/28/2017 7:41 PM, HVAC drooled: > Poor John says Buddy. You don't think the actual way things work- > i.e. the Truth- is the goal of both Science AND Religion? > > So- when that Truth is found, Science and Religion will be the same. > Therefore, BOTH are obviously wrong right now. Unless you worship QM. > ------------ > > Huge difference. Science doesn't have all the answers, so they keep > looking. Criticism awaits (me) around every corner so they are kept > on their toes. > > Religion HAS all the answers so there is no need to look any > further. > > John, I hate to tell you this (not really) but you have had your ass > handed to you in this thread. And I have intentionally not become > involved. > > Please John. Change your evil ways.... Baby > Yeah, criticism awaits around every corner for HVAC, but not for any science (He knows no science) but for writing fake news over and over. His bluster at having his ass handed to him is amazing. He just keeps repeating how great he is hoping eventually people will get bored and give up telling him how (obviously) ignorant he actually is. He still believes that the Catholic Church is the one true church. Once a Catholic ALWAYS a Catholic. Even my Granddad who was a card carrying communist party member went back to the church before he died! Just watch HVAC scurry back to church once he actually does get cancer. He'll go there looking for truth just like my grandpa.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 15:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o94q94$19d7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #620965 |
On 2/28/2017 2:37 PM, john wrote: > Odd > "Problem is, John: What if your "laws" are full of shit? Hmmmm? " > And what if QM is? Fucking "it's all random, > there is no pattern, we lost 100 years, shit?" Well, here's a few things to chew on. - Quantum mechanics does not say, nor has it ever said, "It's all random, there is no pattern". So whatever you are ranting about, it's not anything real. - I really don't think we lost 100 years on anything. If it weren't for quantum mechanics, for instance, you would not have a solid-state IC-based computer on which to type your rants. Nor would we have PET scanners, MRIs, superconducting wire, or any of the rather stupendous advancements we've made in the last 100 years. Now, I gather that your position about that is, "Not enough" or "But bad stuff happened from that too, and so it's all tainted." There's no making some people happy. - In science, there's a way to TELL whether an idea is full of shit or not. It's the match to experiment in quantitative detail. So here's where this matters. You don't care about experimental match. What you care about is whether it matches YOUR fictional laws. So basically, you don't care about science or how it gauges truth. You care about your personal intuitions and THAT'S IT. But nobody else cares about your intuitions. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 19:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o94jp3$hqu$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #620942 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"What fudge? That's heart and soul of quantum mechanics. " >Yes it is Yeah, I forgot about that. That's another question you refuse to answer. What is wrong with delocalized electrons, and why? (do you even understand what that even means?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 11:59 -0800 |
| Subject | atoms in life-like scenarios |
| Message-ID | <5d9c040b-f459-4ee4-af2b-4631e0941312@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #620947 |
it is merely the reificiation of the uncertainty principle, which can apply to any old pair of covarying variants, like time & space ... or even a pair of spatial coordinates, if you can parameterize space with just two ... hm. it is certainly not because the electronic orbital is actually in any wat fuzzy\nonkeplerian, in relation to the nucleus > What is wrong with delocalized electrons, and why? > > (do you even understand what that even means?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 14:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o94ksj$v40$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #620947 |
On 2/28/2017 1:41 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > >> Odd >> "What fudge? That's heart and soul of quantum mechanics. " >> Yes it is > > Yeah, I forgot about that. That's another question you refuse to answer. > > What is wrong with delocalized electrons, and why? > > (do you even understand what that even means?) > No, he doesn't understand what it means, and that's why he thinks it's a fudge. Anything that is not immediately obvious and intuitive to John is a fudge by default. Anything that cannot be explained accurately and completely in two paragraphs of plain conversational English is a fudge by default. This is John Sefton's Law of Natural Correctness. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 08:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o94165$1ogm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #620897 |
On 2/28/2017 7:34 AM, john wrote: > Or better yet, Odd > YOU tell me WHY electrons > cannot all reside within the same > disc. What laws of physics do you > think that breaks? > I'm not ruling it out on the basis of laws of physics. I'm saying it's inconsistent with OBSERVATIONS. If you can only get your model to work for molecules where all the atoms are in a plane, then obviously the existence of nonplanar molecules says your model is cooked. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 15:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o944hm$aoi$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #620892 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >" >The carbon atom is a disk, John, according to you. Put three below the >plane and one above the plane? Or what? " >You still don't understand >that precession of a disc creates >a sphere? Oh rats. I was hoping that maybe "Little Pharma" slipped an antipsychotic or some other OCD-treating product from "Big Pharma" into John's weed or something. I guess not, the retarded precessing spinny things are back.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 10:15 -0800 |
| Subject | atoms inside of life |
| Message-ID | <6b2fde4d-1c3f-49a0-8498-9030ed9c84a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #620746 |
that is the best thing to explain, if you can parameterize the angle, nicely; if that is a challenge, so be that > Well, for another, why are the oxygens in CO2 place at 180 degrees from > each other, but the hydrogens in H2O are NOT at 180 degrees from each other? > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 23:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o92bnt$80m$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #620742 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"..even though you can't explain the shape of methane with a disk-shaped .." >Just put four Hydrogen atoms at the points >of a tetrahedron around a Carbon atom. >Equal forces will keep them there. >What's to explain? What happened to the retarded precessing spinny things? I thought you thought every atom was a bunch of retarded spinny things? Are you starting to come to your senses?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 10:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d579268-508e-465e-9248-cdc75af92376@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #620729 |
On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 11:25:46 AM UTC-5, john wrote: > Odd- > So, alternative forms of matter composed > of we know not what are not stupid. When there is evidence for it. > So, what's wrong with REALLY SMALL > matter made exactly like our matter, > and actually making up our matter? Nothing IFF (= if and only if) there is evidence for it. There is ZERO evidence for the electron being composed of anything. > I don't understand why you fight that so > hard- it provides STRUCTURE for your > subatomic stuff. Why would you reject structure? Physicists reject imaginary structure just for the sake of structure. There is NO KNOWN law indicating a fractal universe (infinitely many self similar levels). If you can find some data even hinting at an internal structure for electrons, then maybe it's worth discussing. But your insistence that electrons MUST have an internal structure WITHOUT supporting evidence is the problem. > I just don't understand you, Odd no comment. (Following the rule: if you cannot say something nice, do not say anything at all.) ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 23:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o92bj0$80m$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #620729 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd- >So, alternative forms of matter composed >of we know not what are not stupid. >So, what's wrong with REALLY SMALL >matter made exactly like our matter, >and actually making up our matter? Nothing -- once there is actually evidence of it. There is no evidence of it so there is no reason to believe in it. There is no evidence of invisible pink fairies causing gravity, either, so no scientist will propose that they cause gravity or anything like that. >I don't understand why you fight that so >hard- it provides STRUCTURE for your >subatomic stuff. Why would you reject structure? Because there is no evidence for structure in electrons and therefore no reason to believe it. Now, present a testable experiment that will demonstrate fractal matter or structure in electrons and you may have something. Right now, you have NOTHING.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 22:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o927lo$80m$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #620711 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >" >You say neutrinos are not a fudge, not an epicycle, that they are >legitimate physics. Now with dark matter.... >" >So...neutrinos WERE hypothesized, >but DM wasn't. Wrong. Neutrinos were hypothesized in 1930, dark matter hypothesized in 1970. >The discrepancy wasn't found to prove >neutrinos until long after they were >hypothesized, but DM was hypothesized >to explain GRCs AFTER the discrepancy >was revealed. Wrong again. Neutrinos were hypothesized to explain the fact that beta decay would violate conservation of energy, momentum and QM spin without them. Dark Matter was hypothesized to explain the fact that galactic rotation curves didn't match the visible matter in the galaxies. THEY DID THE EXACT SAME THING, yet you are fine with the prediction of neutrinos but for some strange reason you have an issue with DM. (You *still* can't find a 6 year old to explain 'invisible heavy stuff' to you?) >I can see how you would think >they're identical- they're totally opposite!! Nope. Same exact process.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web